Quote Originally Posted by Feign View Post
So by that logic, this guy could sue Katy Perry for using a low-poly tiger to make (boatloads of) profit.

There is a legal process to getting an actual copyright, and there's no evidence (that I've seen so far) that Katy Perry or her lawyers have gone through the process for copyrighting deformed cartoon sharks.
NO, he could not.

1. first of all, that Thingiverse model is a tiger, Katy Perry's is a lion
2. his model doesn't have eyes, hers have glowy ones
3. his model has an entirely different neck, tail and ears
4. the triangulation on his model is entirely different
5. his one is blue, whiles hers has a metal color finish

There is probably more to it, but you get the point.

As an analogy to the case mentioned in the article, you could say this:
Imagine a person robbing a bank, after he gets caught by the police he thinks he is in the right to sell the loot, because he put a lot of effort into getting it. Thats ridiculous, but thats the position the person mentioned in the article is in right now.